Observers and Church/Turing
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf Any comments? Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Observers and Church/Turing
Dear Ronald, Thank you very much to submitting this paper for comment! I must preface my initial comment with the statement that I am a mere amateur so you might choose to take my claims and arguments with a measure of sodium chloride. This paper contains a crude material monist facsimile of the idea that I have been exploring and exploring for about 10 years now, even down to the use of the symbol ~ for the equivalence relation. I am in the process of writing up a detailed commentary on it but could not help but to put out this post asap. Kindest regards, Stephen Paul King -Original Message- From: ronaldheld Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:56 AM To: Everything List Subject: Observers and Church/Turing http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf Any comments? Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. wlEmoticon-winkingsmile[1].png
Re: Observers and Church/Turing
I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great
culturally maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet
again, the participant doesn;t even know they are doing it. Garrett
says
/The key is that observers are just a particular type of information,
as is everything else. That is, we assume that the Physical Church
Turing Thesis (PCTT) ..blah blah blah
/
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The author has somehow remained completely uninformed by the real
message in the consciousness material cited in the article.
*Observers are NOT just a particular type of information*
The word information _was defined by an observer_, a human, USING
observation. Like every other word it's just a metaphoric description of
as thing, with meaning to a human. No matter what logical steps one
proceeds to enact from this juncture, you are not describing anything
that can be used to build or explain an observer. You are merely
describing what an observer will see.
What does it take to get something so simple across to physics?
I'll have yet another go at it.
Consider a SET_X = {BALL1, BALL2, BALL3, BALL4}
This is a traditional 3-rd person (3P) view of the set created by a
scientific act of OBSERVATION of the set of balls.
BALL SET SCIENCE then proceeds to construct very clever mathematical
descriptions of set member behaviour.
BUT
If you are the observer = BALL1, INSIDE SET X, the very act of
observation results from the 1ST PERSON (1-P) relationship between [you,
observer = BALL 1 ] and [the rest of the set, from within SET_X]. This
description is not the same as the above description of SET_X Can't
anyone see that ?? The ability to observe anything arises from that
circumstance, not from the 3P-circumstance constructed by having observed.
Science has not even begun to characterise SET_X in the 1P way.
=
Every single attempt so far in science has the following generic form.
I am human scientist FRED. How we humans do observation is a real
mystery. I like mysteries. And I am really good at maths. I will do the
very clever maths of observation. Now where do I begin...ASSUMING
OBSERVATION ... blah blah blah.
Then off we go into the weeds, YET AGAIN.
FRED just doesn't get the difference between 1-P and 3-P. It's a
systemic blindness.
I'll just crawl off and fume for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)
Colin Hales
if you can't formulaically predict/build an observer with what you
produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really
understand it
ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Observers and Church/Turing
Gawd, I've missed you Colin, you fierce old thing! Is it wet where
you are or is the inundation confined to poor old Brisbane?
I suppose you know that Bruno and you agree (at least in my estimation
of your lines of argument) that observation is the key phenomenon to
be explained at the outset, instead - as you rightly say - of just
being taken for granted. If this cardinal error is committed at the
starting gate, the rest of the argument inevitably runs in a circle.
Of course you and Bruno start from different premisses vis-a-vis the
primitives, but on the positive side either theory is (I presume) open
to empirical falsification.
One thing I haven't been able to fathom so far about your own ideas is
where you stand on what Bruno calls first-person indeterminacy, which
has come up again in a recent thread. You know, the transporter
thought experiment, or just the question in general of why I find
myself to be in this particular observer position (as raised in the
target paper). In other words, what is the relation, in your theory,
between the first-person and specific third-person phenomena? In
Bruno's computational approach, the relation seems to emerge via a
kind of filtering process or sieve of consciousness considered as a
whole through the infinity of possible computations. In this way the
computational everything is conceived as converging on consistent
first-person narratives as a consequence of various kinds of measure
- a very rough analogy would be the emergence of all possible books in
Borges' Library of Babel. What would be the analogous ideas in
your own approach?
David
On 12 January 2011 22:50, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great culturally
maintained mental block subverts real progress. And, yet again, the
participant doesn;t even know they are doing it. Garrett says
The key is that observers are just a particular type of information, as is
everything else. That is, we assume that the Physical Church Turing Thesis
(PCTT) ..blah blah blah
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
The author has somehow remained completely uninformed by the real message in
the consciousness material cited in the article.
Observers are NOT just a particular type of information
The word information _was defined by an observer_, a human, USING
observation. Like every other word it's just a metaphoric description of as
thing, with meaning to a human. No matter what logical steps one proceeds
to enact from this juncture, you are not describing anything that can be
used to build or explain an observer. You are merely describing what an
observer will see.
What does it take to get something so simple across to physics?
I'll have yet another go at it.
Consider a SET_X = {BALL1, BALL2, BALL3, BALL4}
This is a traditional 3-rd person (3P) view of the set created by a
scientific act of OBSERVATION of the set of balls.
BALL SET SCIENCE then proceeds to construct very clever mathematical
descriptions of set member behaviour.
BUT
If you are the observer = BALL1, INSIDE SET X, the very act of observation
results from the 1ST PERSON (1-P) relationship between [you, observer = BALL
1 ] and [the rest of the set, from within SET_X]. This description is not
the same as the above description of SET_X Can't anyone see that ?? The
ability to observe anything arises from that circumstance, not from the
3P-circumstance constructed by having observed.
Science has not even begun to characterise SET_X in the 1P way.
=
Every single attempt so far in science has the following generic form.
I am human scientist FRED. How we humans do observation is a real mystery. I
like mysteries. And I am really good at maths. I will do the very clever
maths of observation. Now where do I begin...ASSUMING OBSERVATION
... blah blah blah.
Then off we go into the weeds, YET AGAIN.
FRED just doesn't get the difference between 1-P and 3-P. It's a systemic
blindness.
I'll just crawl off and fume for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)
Colin Hales
if you can't formulaically predict/build an observer with what you
produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really understand
it
ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
